God May Not Play Dice, But Human Observers Surely Do

Abstract

We investigate indeterminism in physical observations. For this, we introduce a distinction between genuinely indeterministic (creation-1 and discovery-1) observational processes, and fully deterministic (creation-2 and discovery-2) observational processes, which we analyze by drawing a parallel between the localization properties of microscopic entities, like electrons, and the lateralization properties of macroscopic entities, like simple elastic bands. We show that by removing the randomness incorporated in certain of our observational processes, acquiring over them a better control, we also alter these processes in such a radical way that in the end they do not correspond anymore to the observation of the same property. We thus conclude that a certain amount of indeterminism must be accepted and welcomed in our physical observations, as we cannot get rid of it without also diminishing our discriminative power. We also provide in our analysis some elements of clarification regarding the non-spatial nature of microscopic entities, which we illustrate by using an analogy with the process of objectification of human concepts. Finally, the important notion of relational properties is properly defined, and the role played by indeterminism in their characterization clarified.

Aerts, D. (1995). Quantum structures: An attempt to explain the origin of their appearance in nature. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aerts, D. (1998). The entity and modern physics: The creation-discovery view of reality. In E. Castellani (Ed.), Interpreting bodies: Classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar